Will acid attacks on women return when Islamist regime falls?


by FG

Acid attacks aren't always based on "honor.  Iintimidation as a way of making Iranians conform to Islamist social policy started a few years befor the social police came on the scene.  In the early days of mullah rule, acid attacks and "burn 'em alive" tactics were preferred choices for anyone who resisted intended Saudi-zation.   Young Iranians need to ask their parents about those days when tens of thousands of Iranian women insisted on continuing to appear in public bareheaded, in jeans and wearing makeup.  Their response to mullahs was, "Screw you.  "So arrest me!." They had to be taught a lesson.

There were simply too many "resisters," too few jails and not enough social police for gentler tactics, like Evin. Too many arrests could have been politically explosive, especially when the mullahs were on the verge of pulling off a coup within the revolution after the US Embassy attack. The mullahs wouldn't need to throw acid in the face of every offender.   Then, as now, intimidation tactics required targeting only a large enough number to "get the message out."    

Like death squads, such attacks could never have occured without approval and protection from powerful mullahs.   No police, no plainclothesmen and no detectives ever caught a single perps and woe to any who did  at a time of hanging judgs, firing squads and "revolutionary courts.  Hence, not a single person was ever punished for such Basilj-Hezbollah style attacks.  That is no coincidence.  Let's not hear anyone blame it on "custom not Islam" as Islam is now interpreted by Iran's rulling mullahs.   In Iran's case, where was that "custom" before 1979?

When this regime falls, many women will be delight want to dump the symbols of oppression which they see as equivalent to the striped uniforms and yellow, pink or blue badges of concentration camp inmates.  

Don't be surprised to see acid attacks, a form of "asymetrical warfare" to resume unless hard line clerics known for using such thugs are rounded up and deprived of all outside contacts.  Perps won't be able to count on officials looking the other way.  I suspect many Iranian males, disgusted by the mullocracy years, will be more than happy to grab offenders, kick the s*it out of them and hold thugs for the police.  It will be important to have severe penalties on the books when that happens.  A tactic meant to be life-destroying deserves harsh puishment.

Iran's mullahs copied this idea from Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Finally someone has made a Oscar-nominated film about victims.  That sounds like something that should interest most people in fed-up Iran where the  latest Saudi-zation measures are "voluntary" uniforms for female government clerks and the same coming soon for university students where Taliban-style gender segregation is already underway.  

It is so important to remember that the vicious behavior by the ruling mullahs didn't start in 2000 but was there from the beginning, so I recommend viewing this film, making copies and circulating them widely.   The Abadan fire burned 400 people alive for watching a western film (non-porno).   The mullahs nailed the doors shut, poured gasoline around every exit, lit a fire, watched the "fun" and then blamed the Shah.  Though the latter made no sense, many believed it then.   Today no one believes foreigners are responsible for massive popular discontent.  


Pakistani film follows survivors of acid attacks



Pakistani women who survive revenge-based acid attacks are, in the words of one, the “living dead.” But their stories take on new life in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Saving Face,” which follows two victims with disfiguring acid injuries as they attempt to reclaim their dignity and identities....


... The hero of the 40-minute short-form documentary — which has earned the first -ever Academy Award nomination for a Pakistani director — is a London plastic surgeon named Mohammad Jawad, who returns to his homeland to donate his services to repair the women’s wounds.  (FG says, "Call him an anti-mullah")....


...The film says more than 100 acid attacks are reported every year in Pakistan but many more go unreported

... In Rukhsana’s case, the tragedy of disfigurement was compounded by the fact that she had no choice but to continue to live with her attacker, her husband — she became pregnant after the attack.

“I have never come across a more tragic life story in my life than what I came across in those few years,” Jawad said. “The sheer helplessness of these poor women — they have to put up with this and the complete failure of society.”



more from FG

I'm amazed Amir doesn't prefer Ahmadinejad to Reza Pahlavi

by FG on

Reza may be too liberal and wimpy and moderate for Amir.

Look at Ahmadinedinad's ultranationalist positions, his promotion of anti-western xenophobia, his love of conspiracy theories, his addiction to amazing whoppers ("Iran is the freest country in the world" and "Iran has no homosexuals,"  etc.)  

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sounds like everything Amir could want.  So move over, Reza.  All Mahmoud lacks, so far as I can tell, is the right bloodline.   

Like Reza, Mahmoud is secular.  Anyone can see Ahmadinejad craves to be the equivalnt of an absolute monarch for Iran, even if he may not call himself one. Perhaps the failure to do so is the only other point Amir has against him.   

So think about it, Amir.  Except in the two respects mentioned, Ahmadinejad sounds ideal for you.  I can even imagine a new tag for you:


Why not? 


Amir's kind of monarchy is like Khamenei's kind of Islam:

by FG on


This is not intended an attack on Reza P whose positions may or may not coincide with his.  If they don't, Amir does Reza no favors.  Opponents of monarchy can point to Amir's statements to undermine the concept.   


1. A return to the same old Shah with the same old powers

A ceremonial monarchy is the best you can hope for.  I doubt the majority of Iranians want even that, fearing the risks and having no need for it.  Where's the advantage?  Note that Amir never offers a single one.  Instead he reinforces existing worries about the consequences of doing so.

2. A secular Supreme Leader with a pseudo-democratic front.  

Iranians have a religious SL now.  If "secular" was all Iranians wanted they could dig up and revive Stalin were that possible.  I gather your Shah would have the same veto as Khamenei or like regional monarchs now.  People want more today.  

Your venomous hatred of western-style democracy is a tip off.  It is shared by many Islamists and the communists who find the western model a too attractive rival.  A second tip-off: Amir's past mourning and praise for fallen dictators in Nicaragua, Tunisia, Egypt or Iran. 

3. Human rights "guarantees" not worth the paper they are printed on

Iranians want guarantees that can't be easily overuled by any government. Like it or not, they want western-style separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. 

4. A government that would rely on "The Big Lie" tactic to get power. 

Iranians have had enough lies.  Amir's arguments that the West put the mullahs in power and keeps them in power are as outrageous as Ludendorff's argument that German armies "on the verge of victory" in WWI were "Stabbed in the Back by Democracy."  Eventually people believed such nonsense because they wanted to and the Nazis profited.

Alas for Amir, when the IRI falls, Iranians will dance in the streets, not look for someone to blame.   Where the fall of the Kaiser was seen as a national disaster, the fall of the mullahs will be seen as "good riddence to bad rubbish." To the degree the West is to blame, it will get thanks.  

The Ahmadinejad-like secular monarchist claimed previously that "outside agitators" somehow managed--in less than a year--to bring down so many dictators.  Since when did the CIA and western democracies become so omnipotent? Where did they get all the human intelligence resources on the ground?  How did they manage to operate so freely and simultaneously in so many police states with eyes everywhere?  How did they manage to overcome so quickly the ultranationaism and anti-westernism bred in these countries for years?  

If it happened as you say, where's the proof, sonny?

5. A government that would constantly encouage anti-western xenophobia to counter any discontent at home.  

Another "advantage" they already enjoy. 

6. A "Greater Iran" Quest (previously advocated) 

Much like a "Greater Germany" or a "Greater Reich" or mullocracy goals now this one implicitly mandates aggression against neighbors which always has bad repercussions (like isolation, war or sanctions).  

After the IRI goes, Iran will have trouble enough rebuilding economies, removing the priviileges of the generals, and encouraging long-persecuted minorities to stay without drafting everyone into new "let's go over a cliff" quests. Most  Iranians want friendly relations with neighbors and the west because they stand to benefit.  You don't for the same reason as the mullahs.

Amir's knowledge of history sucks here.   Imperial empires are long dead because establishing and maintaining them costs more than they are worth. The prime reason is that subject people, having internalized internalized such western concepts as nationalism (originated in 14th century) and univeral human rights (product of the 18th century Enlightenment) won't stand for it and can much better equipped to resist.  Secondly, aggression produces countermoves by threatened neighbors and others who will in turn supply what the natives need to resist, assuring a long-term swamp. 


1. "The Shah wasn't a dictator."

He was an authoritarian one not a totalitarian on and thus milder than the IRI. 

2. "Savak was no worse than any western police agency."

Wrong. It has few legal restraints to inhibit it.  That said, there is no doubt that it as far more restrained than the mullahs whose crimes top Savak a hundredfold.

3. "The West brought down the Shah (and Mubarak, and...., etc.)

Iran's people did it.   Amir's trick is to equate the west's passivity (failure to intervene or prop up any longer) with "ousting" the regime.  It's not equivalent at all.     

Ditto for Amir's sneaky attempt to equate "recognizing a fait accompli" with "causing" the Shah's ouster.  Example, he once cited as "proof" a free plane ride provided by the French for Khamenei after the Shah had already fallen. The French hoped to make the best of it by accepting the inevitable and hoping, just like Iranians in fact, that Khamenei would honor his promises regarding liberties.   If he didn't, what could we do about it?  Invade?  

I'm reminded of right-wing critics who denounced Truman for promises that allegedly "gave away" most of Europe at postwar conferences.  You can't "give away" what overwhelming Soviet armies already possessed.  Hence, we had nothing to lose by extracting such promises since some might be honored, as actually happened (See Vienna in 1955, USSR withdrawal from Iran, Berlin partitions).

4. "The USA not only put the IRI in power but it secretly keeps them there."

A  lie of Ludendorff or Ahmadinejad dimensions.  Virtually every move the IRI makes runs contrary to American interests yet Amir says we support it!  Where's the evidence?  Where's the motive?  As with all conspiracy theories we must take his word for it and prove the negative, which is impossible.  Lert common sense serve to rebut.  

Like Ludendorff Amir's argument relies on the same villain--western democracies.  Damn them!  They are to blame for every world problem and every domestic problem in every non-western country.   Have you ever noticed that countries that don't promote xenophobia (South Korea, Turkey) or have seized to engage in it (China) do better than those who do? 


I  wrongly thought the Iranian revolution of 1979 was originally a broad front revolution of many diverse factions like the first Russian Revolution.

I wrongly thought the clerics seized power by a revolution within a revolution (actually a coup that ousted their victorious companions).

I wrongly thought what made the mullah triumph possible was by the way they exploited the American Embasssy attack.  

To believie Amir's theories one must accept the following:

The Americans were secretly behind the attack on their own embassy They wanted hostage taking so the mullahs could seize all power.    They love Khamnenei, Mojtaba, the IRI generals, the Basilj, Iranian and Lebonese Hezbollah.   They enjoyed Quds kidnapping and murder of four soldiers in Iraq and Quds-designed IEDs, and the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon. Western naval forces are stationed near Iran but--like sanctions--it's just for show.  Amir knows we really, really, truely love the mullah regime.  He's told us as much.


Here is an idea to solve this problem

by RostamZ on

For every acid attack, the new government raises 100 mosques in Qom and Mashad. If the pain is sever enough, the Mullahs will heed. If they hurt things that are dear to us, we take the things that are dear to them.


Your comment,

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

"Today no one believes foreigners are responsible for massive popular discontent."  

Was this comment intended to make fun of peoples ignorance today, like back then?  After all the character assassinations of the shah, portrayed as a dictator, corrupt etc.  savak, portrayed as torturing as a matter of ordinary policy, widespread with employees knowledge.  Total disingenuous Psy-ops.  Today, there are still dunces who see USA as against extremism, not the one that is using it and for it and syria assad for it due to IRI alliance.  Just as block headed is those who think Assad falling, means IRI is next.  In total denial of who brought IRI or who keeps them there or why.  Pity. 


Acid attacks have always been

by Albaloo on

Acid attacks have always been entwined with the Iranian society.  We had it before the revolution as well.  



by پندارنیک on

By the time this regime falls acid will have become alkaline......... :)